Marney Cox, San Diego Association of Governments

Hosting the Super Bowl exclusively in places like New Jersey makes economic sense for two reasons: first, when the event is held in popular, good weather stadiums the Super Bowl attendees displace visitors that otherwise would be occupying the same hotels and restaurants. Not many visitors in New York/New Jersey this time of year, especially with the threat of the polar vortex. Second, hosting the Super Bowl is often used as a carrot by teams to get them to help subsidize a stadium. Not in New Jersey, mostly privately funded. Match made in economic heaven, unless you’re a player or fan.

Yes
80% (24)

No
20% (6)

Phil Blair, Manpower

They should hold it here in San Diego every year. I can hardly wait to see the fans' reactions to freezing cold, outdoor seating in New Jersey in the middle of winter in an uncovered stadium. I don’t care how new the stadium is. I was on the Board of the first Super Bowl held here in San Diego and the announcers kept saying “Why don’t they just hold the game here in San Diego every year.” I agree!

Kelly Cunningham, National University System

The question is a good example of what economists call asymmetric incentives. From the NFL’s perspective, it makes complete sense to move the Super Bowl, as the league is able to play cities against one another to obtain subsidies for new stadiums and other concessions. For cities, the incentive cuts the other way. With many cities competing for one product (right to host the game) in very limited supply, cities spend lavishly (and often foolishly) to host the Big Game. For the game itself, it would make much more sense to rotate among San Diego and other warm weather cities.

Gina Champion-Cain, American International Investments

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

The NFL doesn’t need to get much in-person exposure, since the game is already the most watched program on television. But the movement of the Super Bowl to different venues allows the NFL to “spread the wealth,” i.e., give more metropolitan areas a chance to get a boost to their economies. From the fans’ perspective, it gives them a chance to go to different places every year instead of the same location each time. From a business standpoint, the NFL also benefits because it creates competition among cities and regions in bidding for the game.

Stephan Goss, Zeeto Media

If it made more sense economically for the NFL to keep the game in the same spot, they would’ve attempted it a long time ago. They essentially put the Super Bowl out to bid. Cities compete with one another by trying to make the better offer. The change of venue offers new opportunities and excitement for the fans, whereas having it in the same city every year would become less exciting and more predictable.

James Hamilton, University of California San Diego

The primary reason the NFL moves the event around to different locations is to induce cities to invest in stadium improvements. Ultimately these benefit the NFL owners more than local residents. Although there are some economic benefits to the host city, these probably are not as big as the backers claim, particularly when you factor in what cities pay in order to be selected. Fans want to see Peyton Manning’s precision passes, not watch from a cold seat as everybody slips around in the snow on the field. And it makes sense to choose a location to which people want to travel.

Jamie Moraga, intelliSolutions

If you are the NFL. The NFL benefits no matter what the location. Some of the cities that submit bids try to woo the NFL with perks, incentives, and tax breaks hoping to secure the coveted game. According to reports, most money spent during a Super Bowl goes to NFL-sponsored events and out-of-town vendors, who take the money with them when they leave. If you are a city hosting a Super Bowl, economically it doesn’t make sense for the location to move each year. It costs cities millions of dollars in infrastructure needs, manpower, and transportation for one game. If it stayed in one city for a multi-year deal, then that is when the city would reap the most benefits.

Gary London, The London Group Realty Advisors

Although I selfishly agree with John Madden who declared that the Super Bowl should be held in San Diego every year. There is an active debate as to how much the Super Bowl actually contributes in terms of direct economic impacts, yet no one argues that they contribute something that is a net plus. Perhaps a better way to look at the impact is to acknowledge that big events fuel an economic impact which catalyzes cities to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate the big crowds which benefits the community long after the game is over; they provide a big advertisement for the region and certainly they raise community pride. On these bases, it is good to move it around.

Jim Plante, Pathway Genomics

It benefits all stakeholders to move the Super Bowl to different cities each year. The NFL is a business whose profits are directly linked to the public's interest in their product. Rotating the Super Bowl between cities allows them to generate fan interest nationwide. It is a great way to highlight new state-of-the-art NFL stadiums and provide a new tourist-friendly environment for their fans that come each year to view the Super Bowl, which drives revenues from tourism to local business and tax revenue for the city.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

Does anyone think that the comfort of fans or players drove the decision to play in New Jersey? That was probably well down the criteria list. The NFL is a business that sells out location choices to the highest bidder. Revenues from a Super Bowl exceed $600 million and we do not know what Met Life and New Jersey did to lure the NFL to a “new," albeit open stadium. Perhaps it was a great sales job with lines like “Yo, we got the greatest cawfee!” but that is what the fans should drink if they want to stay warm, not that anyone asked them.

Rick Sanborn, Seacoast Commerce Bank

The Super Bowl is a tremendous revenue generator for whichever city is lucky enough to host it, based on recent economic impact studies, which estimate as much as $600 million in additional revenue for the host city. In addition to the economic impact of the event, hosting the Super Bowl gives the host city the opportunity to showcase their city, which will hopefully drive future business to the city in the form of tourism and conventions. Based on the significant economic impact, it is very important that the NFL share that benefit by moving the bowl around to different cities.

Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University

The impact on the overall economy is limited, although the opportunity to visit different cities may boost total tourist outlays modestly. Individual cities and the NFL are likely to reap significant benefits. Hosting localities should receive a boost to spending on hotels, restaurants, transportation, and entertainment venues. These benefits should be able to offset security and other costs. The NFL gains by having cities bid among each other to offer the most attractive site while further boosting the value of an NFL franchise seen as a requisite for the host city.

John Sarkisian, Pro Performance Sports

The loss of the Super Bowl has had significant economic impact to San Diego. Tourism is a driving force in our economy and there are few events that can generate the influx to our city and the exposure to millions via television that rival the Super Bowl. Great cities have iconic public spaces. While San Diego has many iconic spaces created by mother nature with the exception of the Salk Institute, the Hotel Del Coronado, and Balboa Park's California Tower, we have few iconic buildings. Our city, in concert with the Chargers, should develop an iconic multi-use stadium that will return the Super Bowl to San Diego and be a source of community pride.

Dan Seiver, Reilly Financial Advisors

The NFL teams act together as a monopoly, controlling entry, sharing revenue, and negotiating as one entity with workers, suppliers, and customers. Any external competition was either wiped out via merger, or failed on its own. It is thus not surprising that the NFL monopoly has spread the "wealth" of the Super Bowl extravaganza among its warm-weather cities (San Diego three times) and domed stadiums. This has, of course, left out undomed cold-weather cities/regions like New York-New Jersey, until this year. If the experiment is a success (I doubt it), other cold-weather NFL cities may get Super Bowls. Either way, Go Broncos!

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

It makes economic sense for the NFL to let communities bid for the honor of being the host city, although the economic benefits for the host city would vary, depending on the deal they strike. Selecting a venue that will provide a positive fan experience is in the NFL’s best interest, and the NFL gains financially by fresh marketing opportunities that arise each year from changing the venue. That said, where games are played may matter less to the NFL than which teams are playing since most of the economics for the NFL come from broadcast rights, ticket sales and merchandise licenses.